2015 (10) TMI 1546 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - principle of natural justice - no personal hearing was granted - Held that - Three show cause notices dated 25.1.2002, 22.10.2002 and 18.2.2003 for the period February 2001 to November 2002, have already decided by the Tribunal, which is upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In our considered view, the demand of duty on these three show cause notices have already been merged with the Hon ble Supreme Court decision 2009 (10) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT . The appellant is not contesting the classification of the goods on merit. - notice of hearing was issued in respect of the said show cause notices dated 16.6.1997 and 04.3.1997. So, confirmation of demand of duty alongwith interest and penalties in respect of the said two show cause notices are not sustainable. - matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Validity of demand of duty for various show cause notices; Merger of Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions; Lack of notice of hearing for specific show cause notices.

Classification of Goods:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Calcium Carbonate Precipitated, claimed classification under Heading No. 25.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, with nil duty rate. However, the department argued for classification under Heading No. 28.36, contending duty payment. The Tribunal upheld classification under Heading 2836.90, citing prior decisions supported by the Supreme Court. The appellant challenged this decision, emphasizing the earlier favorable classification under Chapter 25 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent events involving the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant argued that the demand of duty is unsustainable due to time-barred show cause notices, citing relevant legal precedents.

Merger of Tribunal and Supreme Court Decisions:
The Tribunal found that show cause notices from February 2001 to November 2002 had been decided and upheld by the Supreme Court, merging the decisions. As the appellant did not contest the goods' classification on merit, the Tribunal held that the demand of duty for these notices had already been settled by the Supreme Court's decision. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of notice of hearing for show cause notices from June and March 1997, deeming the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties for these notices as unsustainable.

Remand and Disposal:
The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty for certain show cause notices while setting aside the demand for others due to procedural irregularities. The matter concerning the June and March 1997 show cause notices was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal clarified that it did not express any opinion on these specific show cause notices. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the classification of goods, the validity of duty demands for various show cause notices, the merger of Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions, and procedural fairness in issuing notices and conducting hearings. The detailed analysis provided clarity on each issue raised, referencing relevant legal provisions, past decisions, and the specific circumstances of the case.